Saturday, May 30, 2015
Friday, May 29, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Friday, May 22, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Dr.JP Rates First Year Of Modi Government; On AAP Government spat with bureaucracy
"The government was elected for five years. It is too early to judge. Real change takes time & perseverance. Modi's one year does give us pointers. The record is mixed. Three areas are crucial: growth agenda; flagship programs and delivery reform.
Modi gets A in economic management. Fiscal and monetary policies, infrastructure, energy sectors - record is impressive given the hurdles.
Swachh Bharat, Smart Cities etc - the government gets B grade. Ideas are good, but poorly designed & executed. A slogan, acronym and PR campaign not enough.
Real change in education, healthcare, local empowerment, police reform, speedy justice and service delivery - government gets C. I see almost no effort at all in these critical areas.
We cannot get miracles in one year in a vast, complex, dysfunctional state. But proper design and real reform in delivery are vital"
Referring to the ongoing spat of AAP & Arvind Kejriwal's with Delhi bureaucracy and said "Only a bad workman complains against his tools. What next? People are bad?"
"Winning elections is not the same as delivering results. We have perfection of means & confusion of ends! Power game is all consuming.
Deep understanding of institutions & agenda for reform to reorder incentives are tasks of elected leaders; not media frenzy & alibis"
Monday, May 18, 2015
Sec. 17(A) will weaken CBI, ACB, says JP
Dr. Narayan said the above section would require the CBI and ACB to take every case to the notice of Lokpal and Lokayukta. There were 80 lakh Central government employees and about 10 lakh employees in some big states and over all the number of government employees in the country is about two crore. In other words such a stipulation would practically stall investigation into corruption charges against government employees. One could appreciate taking Lokpal permission at the stage of prosecution in alleged corruption cases but not for even taking up investigation, he said. Dr. Narayan said unless the CBI and ACB had autonomy, they would not be able to investigate and crack corruption cases. He called upon Parliament members, irrespective of political affiliation, to fight against the proposed Section 17(A) in the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Courtesy: The Hindu
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Implications of the Proposed Section 17A in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- In 2003, Section 6A was incorporated in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act, 1946) dealing with CBI. This section mandated prior approval of government before CBI took up investigation of cases of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, 1988) relating to officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above.
In 2014, in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swami vs Director, CBI and others (writ petition (civil) number 21 of 2004 of Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of India) the Supreme Court struck down Section 6A as unconstitutional and violative of rule of law.
- PC Act, 1988 gives full freedom to investigative agencies to conduct enquiry into allegations against any public servant. No prior permission was envisaged in law for investigation. However, Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as Section 197 of CrPC envisage prior sanction of prosecution of a public servant.
- Now the Union government is introducing an official amendment in the pending legislation The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (PC Amendment Bill, 2013). Under the proposed Section 8B of the Amendment Bill, a new Section 17A is sought to be inserted in the Principal Act as follows:
“17A (1) No police officer shall conduct any investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in the discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval-
(a) of the Lokpal, in the case of a public servant who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, and is a person referred to in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013;
(b) of the Lokayukta of the State or such authority established by law in that State under whose jurisdiction the public servant falls, in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State,
Conveyed by an order issued by the Lokpal in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 or the Lokayukta of the State or such authority referred to in clause (b) for processing of investigation against the public servant:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person.
(2) Any information received or any complaint which is made to a police officer or any agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) in respect of an alleged offence relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties shall, first, be referred by such police officer or agency-
(i) in respect of a public servant referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), to the Lokpal;
(ii) in respect of a public servant referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), to the Lokayukta of the State or such authority referred to in that clause.
(3) Any information or complaint referred by a police officer or the agency under the subsection (2), shall be deemed to be a complaint made to-
(a) the Lokpal under clause(e) of sub-section (1) of section (2) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, Act, 2013 and all the provisions of the said Act shall apply accordingly to such complaint;
(b )the Lokayukta of a State or such authority established by law in a State, as the case may be, and all the provisions of the law under which the Lokayukta or such authority has been established shall apply accordingly to such complaint”.
Implications of the proposed Section 17A:
- This covers all recommendations and decisions of all public servants in the discharge of their official functions or duties. That means, except in cases of successful trap, every allegation of corruption must first be forwarded to Lokpal/Lokayukta for prior approval of investigation. The police, who have the duty to investigate any and every crime, including murder, rape, misappropriation, are prevented from investigating corruption on their own.
- Given the way Lokpal/Lokayukta institutions are structured, we can have every confidence that each case will be decided on merits. But there are about 60 lakh public servants of Union government (including public undertakings and departments), and in many major states there are over 10 lakh public servants. Overall, there are about 200 lakh or 2 crore public servants in India. If the CBI and State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) have to forward each case to Lokpal/Lokayukta before even commencing investigation, the whole anti-corruption institutional framework will be jammed and paralysed.
- The proposed Section17A does not even allow a summary, instant decision by Lokpal/Lokayukta. The amendment specifies that the Lokpal/Lokayukta must give prior approval conveyed by an order issued in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 7 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Chapter 7 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 envisages an elaborate procedure even for preliminary enquiry. In case of Lokpal, it may again involve CVC, CBI or Lokpal’s own investigative wing. Also, even at preliminary stage, the public servant must be given an opportunity of being heard. The preliminary enquiry may take 90 days or longer. Only after such an elaborate procedure can Lokpal/Lokayukta accord approval for investigation.
- This provision ultimately creates enormous hurdles to the investigation of any corruption offence even in the preliminary stage. What is needed is speedy sanction of prosecution under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 197 of CrPC, and to ensure that such sanction power vests in an independent, impartial authority like Lokpal/Lokayukta. Instead, even powers of investigation are taken away from CBI and ACBs by the new Section 17A.
- The net result will be tremendous weakening of investigative agencies, and dilution of Lokpal and Lokayuktas. The Lokpal/Lokayuktas are intended to be high ombudsmen to hold senior civil servants and highly placed public servants to account. By bringing every case of corruption before them even at the allegation stage prior to investigation, the Lokpal/Lokayuktas lose all relevance as high ombudsmen, and will become ineffective, overburdened, dysfunctional, slow-moving bureaucracies, defeating the very purpose of Lokpal legislation.
This provision is unconstitutional as declared by the Supreme Court, illogical in extending the discredited single directive to all classes of government employees, retrogressive as it weakens investigative agencies, burdensome on the institutions of Lokpal/Lokayuktas, and ultimately counter-productive in combating corruption.
We urge you to use your good offices to ensure that the Members of Parliament across parties are made aware of these grave implications and the proposed amendment is dropped. All parties, civil society & media must raise voice against this retrogressive step. We need strong, effective institutions.
- Dr Jayaprakash Narayan
Friday, May 15, 2015
JP urges KCR to spare NTR Stadium, Indira Park
Lok Satta Party founder president Jayaprakash Narayan said that the Chief Minister, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, should seriously consider the demand of opposition parties not to construct Kala Bharathi at the NTR Stadium.
He said that the opposition parties did not object to construction of Kala Bharathi as being projected by Mr. Chandrasekhar Rao. They only appealed to him to continue the NTR Stadium as sports ground for children and youth.
“We welcome Kala Bharathi. But in its name, it is not proper to destroy places that serve as lung spaces, play grounds and public places to celebrate religious festivals by all communities and turn them into concrete jungles,” he said.
There are several sites in the city that could be utilised for the purpose, he said and recalled that even Supreme Court in the past had directed against constructions in places allotted for play grounds.
Dr. JP also criticised the proposal to construct Vinayak Sagar by destroying the popular Indira Park with thousands of trees in the vicinity of Hussainsagar to facilitate immersion of Ganesh idols. He said it was imperative to protect and conserve the biggest park in the twin cities. The movement for protection of NTR Stadium, Indira Park and construction of Kala Bharathi in another site launched by Lok Satta Party was getting support from various political parties and people’s organisations. The signature campaign, sending post cards and missed call to 86880 47100 launched in support of their movement was getting a huge public response, he said.
It was not right on part of the Chief Minister to blame the opposition parties when people were protesting his decision to replace NTR Stadium with Kala Bharathi and Indira Park with Vinayak Sagar, he said.
Dr. JP urged the Chief Minister to think realistically without taking it as a prestigious issue and shift the proposed construction of Kala Bharati to the defunct DBR Mills site or any other area.
Suggests that the Chief Minister take up construction of Kala Bharathi at DBR Mills site instead of NTR Stadium.
Courtesy: The Hindu
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Monday, May 11, 2015
Acquittal of Jayalalitha Shows the Complexity of Rooting Out Corruption: Time for Direct Election For Chief Minister
Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, Founder of Loksatta Party reacted to the verdict in Ms. Jayalalitha case with a series of tweets:
Acquittal of Ms.Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets case & public rejoicing show the complexity of rooting out corruption and the personalized, feudal politics.
Power for private gain and personal aggrandizement is the norm. Far-reaching politics & institutional reform is vital for India's future.
All traditional parties are mired in a crass political culture. Most parties are private fiefdoms. States are specially vulnerable.
We need systemic change in states - direct election of Chief Minister with proper succession & term limits. Status-quo is not sustainable.
Radical reforms - police, prosecution & judicial - are needed to enforce rule of law. We need to rise above personal political fortunes.
Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamilnadu & Karnataka witness vast expenditure for vote buying (Rs 5-10 crore per Assembly candidate!). Corruption is inevitable in such an electoral system.
Debate must rise above individuals. Can we change rules of the game putting the best & brightest in office? Can honesty & power coexist?
The breathless live coverage of Jayalalitha case must give way to robust, mature reflection to help us transform our political culture.
Posts
